Page:America's Highways 1776–1976.djvu/212

 year following the fiscal year for which they were appropriated.


 * Authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to proceed to place any road in a proper state of maintenance if any State failed to do so within 90 days after having been notified to do it and to charge the costs of such work against the Federal funds allotted to that State. Furthermore, it stipulated that no other propects would be approved until the State reimbursed the Federal Government for the costs of the repairs and that the money paid would be reapportioned among all the States for construction of roads. The Secretary, then, could approve further projects submitted by that State.
 * Providing that funds deducted for costs of administration could be used for highway research and investigational studies independently or in cooperation with the State highway departments and other agencies.

The Federal Highway Act of 1921, as it amended and supplemented the 1916 Act, constituted the remainder of the basic philosophies, principles, policies, procedures and controls which still exist for the program.

The appropriations in the 1921 Act provided funds for forest roads and trails in the amount of $5 million for fiscal year 1922 and $10 million for fiscal year 1923, but it appropriated Federal-aid system funds only for fiscal year 1922 in the amount of $75 million.

However, when the Post Office Appropriation Act for 1923 was approved June 19, 1922, it contained provisions amending the Federal Aid Road Act of 1916 to provide for the continuance of the highway program through fiscal years 1923, 1924, and 1925. Important new language was used in the Act—instead of providing appropriations for the 3 years, it stated “. . . there is hereby authorized to be appropriated,. . . the following additional sums. . . .”

This language meant that it was still necessary to go through the appropriation process by further legislation. The actual funding of the authorization then became a matter for consideration later by the appropriations committees. In this instance the “authorized to be appropriated” language was used in an Appropriation Act—however, the following additional provision was included regarding the funds for fiscal year 1923:

"Provided, That the Secretary of Agriculture shall act upon projects submitted to him under his apportionment of this authorization and his approval of any such project shall be deemed a contractual obligation of the Federal Government for the payment of its proportional contribution thereto."

The principle thus established is commonly called “contract authority,” which meant that the full sum of money authorized in the Act could be obligated before any legislation had been passed to provide liquidating cash to pay the amounts claimed by the States.

The impact of this change in the method of authorizing and funding the Federal-aid highway program was vast because:


 * It was essential that the States be provided ample time to prepare to participate in the program.
 * It was not reasonable to expect the States to proceed with preparatory work and costs without assurance from the Federal Government that the apportionments would be funded.
 * It was essential that Federal funds be available for prompt payment of State claims for reimbursement.
 * It was not efficient money management to appropriate the full program funds for a 2- or 3-year period awaiting annual apportionment and an additional 5 or more years before a given fiscal year’s need for actual reimbursement. Under this system, large sums would be tied up awaiting eventual disbursement.
 * It was assurance of the continuity of the program because the program was then dependent only upon obtaining future authorizations.

When Federal assistance for the development of highways was first considered, there was no “model program” to copy. While Congress must be given the final credit, many of the pioneer leaders in the emerging State highway departments, highway industries and associations, and the Office of Public Roads in the Department of Agriculture all played a major part in developing the legislation. Among all major Federal assistance programs, the Federal-aid highway program has been one of the most successful in its effectiveness, efficiency and its cooperative administration by the Federal Government and the States.

The very limited role of the Office of Road Inquiry, when it was created in 1893, was strictly spelled out in Secretary of Agriculture J. Sterling Morton’s letter appointing General Roy Stone, a prominent New York civil engineer and Secretary of the League of National Roads, to the position of Special Agent and Engineer for Road Inquiry. The Secretary cautioned: “The Department is to furnish information, not to direct and formulate any system of organization, however efficient or desirable it may be. Any such effort on its part would soon make it subject to hostile criticism. . . .”

While the role of the Federal Government was to be greatly strengthened and broadened both by legislation and the personal policy of future highway administrators, the underlying philosophy behind the original directive has survived.

Of great significance in the shaping of the Federal–State relationship in the administration of the Federal-aid highway program was the appointment of Thomas H. MacDonald as the Chief of the Bureau of Public Roads on May 3, 1919. At the time of his appointment, Mr. MacDonald was the Chief Engineer of the Iowa State Highway Commission and had been a member (since 1915) of the Executive Committee of AASHO which was created late in 1914. It was on the recommendation of State highway officials that Mr. MacDonald was selected to succeed Logan Waller Page who died unexpectedly in December 1918. 206